Raj Mathur ( राज =?utf-8?b?IOCkruCkvuCkpeClgeCksA==?=)
raju at linux-delhi.org
Sun Sep 5 05:14:31 UTC 2010
On Saturday 04 Sep 2010, David Woolley wrote:
> Helge Reikeras wrote:
> > I'm considering using ARToolKit for a project I'm working on. See
> > http://www.hitl.washington.edu/artoolkit/. The disclaimer reads
> > " IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO USE ARTOOLKIT:
> > ARToolKit is made available freely for non-commercial use under the
> > GNU General Public License. Commercial licenses to a professional
> This appears to void the GPL, as it appears to be an additional
> restriction. There appear to be no licences other than the
> commercial ones.
> It is possible they didn't mean commercial, but something more
> limited, corresponding to things not permitted by the GPL.
> However, it is likely that they failed to understand the GPL.
It is also possible that they are falling into the common error of
confusing "proprietary" with "commercial", and hence "open"/"free" for
"non-commercial". It takes a fair amount of education before people
understand that FOSS licences are actually "commercial"; until they
understand that, they tend to use "commercial" as the antonym of
"free/open". The confusion is probably due to the dual nature of the
Wouldn't it be possible to contact UW and get a clarification from them?
Give a bit of latitude, their intent appears to be clear: dual-license
the toolkit, a la Qt.
Raj Mathur raju at kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
More information about the License-discuss